They work for you - don't they?
Our MPs give us a voice at a national level. They represent our needs in parliament, ensuring that our views are taken into account by central government. They exist because of us.
It is therefore vital, both for themselves and those they serve, that it is as easy as possible for constituents to have their say, so they can take matters to the next level, when required, meeting a minister or lodging a question in the house.
All MPs make themselves available to some extent – but there is no common approach, no one size fits all and perhaps there needs to be to ensure consistent governance
They all hold surgeries where constituents are invited to come to them to discuss matters. A few Tweet, use Facebook or write a blog. Many have e-mail addresses and phone numbers, just as it should be.
Apart from the obligatory website, a few eschew digital communications completely, instead inviting correspondence by traditional letter or fax. I know this to be true, as I was recently required to fax one local MP to arrange a meeting, while another was only contactable by post.
Is this easy enough? Are some MPs working hard enough to hear what we have to say? Now much easier forms of communication are in place do the fax machine and envelope constitute a barrier? Our lives are busier than they have ever been before, in part due to the explosion of digital methods of communication. Do people have the time to pen a letter, put it in the post and await a reply? Can people wait for the monthly surgery to get what’s on their mind off their chests – to mix metaphors? Why should they when everyone else is communicating using much speedier methods?
Actual visits and writing letters require much greater effort than drafting an e-mail and could potentially deter the constituent from having their say, or make them feel that the system is deliberately making it hard for them to make their voice heard.
Gordon Brown was, earlier this year, criticised by party colleagues for Labour’s failure to get the message across – but his detractors focused on his use of new media as the failure, not the refusal of some to embrace current and effective channels of communication to speak to their publics.
It would seem to me that moving in this direction is right and it is the failure to get the message across is inherent in relying not on communications tools of the future, but those of the past.